Oscar Pistorius ‘was not the most impressive witness’ says prosecution

Gerrie Nel accuses defence of introducing last-minute psychiatric condition
suffered by the defendant because they knew their case was weak

Oscar Pistorius was “not the most impressive witness” when he gave evidence at his trial for the murder of girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp and his account will be rejected by the judge when she makes her decision about his guilt or innocence, the court heard.

Gerrie Nel, the prosecutor in the high-profile trial, said Pistorius had presented “three different versions” of why he fired the four shots at Steenkamp through a locked lavatory door of his Pretoria home on February 14 last year.

The athlete first claimed he thought Steenkamp, 29, was an intruder, then that he fired by accident after hearing a noise that startled him, Mr Nel said.

His latest defence offered by a psychiatrist employed by his lawyers, the state barrister added, was that he suffered from a Generalised Anxiety Disorder which made him paranoid about security and compromised his ability to appreciate “the wrongfulness” of firing without seeing his target.

Doctor Merryll Vorster first assessed Pistorius on May 8, more than two months after the trial had begun.

She told the court that he would have used his strict sportsman’s regime and diet as control mechanisms to keep his anxiety in check but it would have compromised his ability to think straight on the night he killed Steenkamp.

Dr Vorster admitted that there appeared to be an "inconsistency" in Pistorius's account of the night he shot Steenkamp, with his explanation to her that he heard an intruder and fired at the noise.

Mr Nel put it to Dr Vorster that Pistorius had not given the same testimony in court and Dr Vorster conceded that he "could just be lying".

Dr Vorster's evidence prompted Mr Nel to call for Judge Thokozile Masipa to send the world-famous Paralympic athlete for psychiatric assessment at a state mental hospital. If she grants the request, it will set his trial back by at least a month.

Mr Nel said he was aware of the “practical implications” of his request but that without the referral, the court could not be confident of Pistorius’ mental fitness to stand trial which, he added, might be raised in an appeal should he be convicted of the premeditated murder charge he faces.

He pointed to the athlete’s apparent confusion about his defence as a possible indication of his poor mental state.

“The evidence and report of Dr Vorster perhaps suggest that more ought to be made of the accused’s mental state than is currently the case,” he said.

“Dr Vorster has conceded that the accused is a danger to society and to himself and that he should not be allowed to possess a firearm.”

Alternatively, he said, the defence legal team might have had Pistorius assessed by Dr Vorster late in the trial and after he gave evidence because they were seeking ways to rescue their case.

“We will argue that the accused was not the most impressive witness,” he told the judge.

“This is a factor that may become more important if the court should reject the evidence of the accused,” the lawyer added in written arguments submitted to the judge.

Barry Roux, Pistorius’s barrister, responded in a passionate argument that Gerrie Nel was twisting the law as a “ruse” to get a second opinion on his client’s mental state because his own case wasn't “good enough".

"We're not saying that we want you to introduce a finding he was incapable to determine right or wrong, but take these factors into account," he told Judge Thokozile Masipa.

Mr Nel fired back that Mr Roux was being too “emotional”. “I would also be if I called a witness and that witness opened the door for the referral of my client,” he said.

Judge Masipa will make a ruling on whether Pistorius will be referred at 930am local time on Wednesday.